It is clear the league is changing and the Seattle Seahawks is changing with it. You can see it across the board in this 2013 draft.

I believe the rookie cap will be the ultimate un-doing of fan favorites & beloved vets. I predict in another 10 years (or less), only QBs will be making the obscene money many vets (Revis) enjoy today. Vets will be forced to settle for 'realistic' money, or they will be replaced with 2nd or 3rd year men (and so on). If all owners play this the same way (and they will) the public won't even detect a drop off.

Strikes, threats of strikes and hold outs, have seen the owners feet held to the fire for many years. Now, the writing is on the wall and the owners will surely get the last laugh (the rich always get richer).

Sooner than later, we will see this up close and personal with our beloved Seattle Seahawks. Most are not going to appreciate it when this reality hits home (Sherman). This is what I'm seeing, but I'd actually like to be wrong, so your (intelligent) counters will be welcomed & appreciated.

QB alone can't win the race. Sorry, but not happening. Truly elite players at several key non-QB positions will continue to make boatloads of cash. Corner, tackle, WR, and anybody that can rush the passer regardless of position.

I think Sherman is an elite talent, and elite talent will always be able to get paid, at least at certain positions. Elite CBs, elite pass-rushers, and elite QBs are all in that group. Otherwise, I think what you are saying is true.

DeMaurice Smith is just an awful negotiator. How he's still running the NFLPA, I don't know. The NFLPA needs to just start a lockout fund right now where everyone gives a proportion of their salary and then they need to threaten to blow up the next league season after this current CBA is done. Also, they should fire De Smith.

Colin Kaepernick is a great person, something that the NFL is sorely lacking.

Right before Aaron Rodgers signed the richest contract in NFL history, Green Bay also signed Clay Matthews to an "obscene money" contract. They let Jennings walk, but obviously QB isn't the only position that teams can afford to pay guys. The cap is also going higher.

I think you're overstating things a bit. Yes, a great team with a franchise QB probably can't keep all of its fan-favorite players, but there will be a handful of core guys that it plans around financially and keeps. In Seattle's case, that likely includes Russell Wilson, Percy Harvin, Russell Okung and most of its secondary (Sherman, Thomas and Chancellor).

Where are all these great non-qb, fan favorite players going to go? If no one is paying them, do you really think they will just drop out of the league rather than "settling" for a 7 figure salary. You speak of the rich getting richer, referring to the owners hoarding money rather than paying it out, but the new CBA instituted a salary floor. The structured contracts for rookies in actuality frees up more money to spend on those fan favorite players worth keeping.

I think op is sorta on to something, but it's not going to be just qbs that get paid. Elite talent will still get the big paydays, but i think the criteria for what we consider elite is going to be a lot higher than in years past. The cheap talent coming in from the draft isn't that much of a downgrade from a vet considering the cost savings.

One thing op isn't accounting for though, the new cba has a salary FLOOR to go along with the salary cap. Teams will have minimums they need to reach, and i can't see the savvy ones blowing the wad on one position.

Some excellent points. I probably should have left out the word only before the word QB. As soon as I hit enter, I thought of the QBs blindside. That tackle will need to be paid and unlike a wideout or RB, his replacement would not be as easy to find, or as easy to groom. The money will have to be spread out as I understand the owners can't pull a Marlin and sit on the cash under the conditions of the current agreement. Elite corners will also get paid but I don't think to the tune of 16 mil per year.

Which brings me to Richard Sherman. I loathe the day he no longer shuts down the opposing WR for our Hawks, but I don't think we will re-sign him. Sherm will demand Revis money...and rightfully so. There are teams that will break the bank to sign him. They can build their secondary around him. That said, I don't see us paying him the same money we will likely be paying Mr. Wilson. You?

BTW, I don't write this in a doom and gloom manner. I actually prefer college to the pros so my feelings won't be crushed when we sign my favorite college players to replace my favorite pro players. Many will feel differently.

As long as Russell is on this team, we will always be relevant. Its going to be tough seeing some stars leave, but we're in great hands with him. Look at Peyton's Colts for example. They've had excellent seasons without much a supporting cast for him (talking post XLI years). Even during their SB season, the defense was pretty atrocious outside Freeney and Mathis.

Steve2222 wrote:As long as Russell is on this team, we will always be relevant. Its going to be tough seeing some stars leave, but we're in great hands with him. Look at Peyton's Colts for example. They've had excellent seasons without much a supporting cast for him (talking post XLI years). Even during their SB season, the defense was pretty atrocious outside Freeney and Mathis.

Absolutely. And it was like 1 year ago today that I wanted Pete fired for picking him. LOL. I was so pissed and screamed (at the televison) Well, Russell Wilson better be the best 5'10" QB in history, PETE!

Right track, wrong idea. What Pete and John have done this time is a: draft players that will put pressure on our highest paid players and b: to groom players that will likely replace players we can't afford to pay (a:Red & Clem b: Sherman)

The players will form their own league before this would ever happen. It is only a matter of time before they figure out that they don't need owners. These are grown men. They are the product. We will watch them. They don't need to be "owned" by anybody. With as popular as football is, and as much money as we pay to watch and collect garb, the last thing the players need is some rich guy to take half off the top.

Tical, we don't watch the players. We watch the team. How many here stop watching Seahawks games when their favorite Seahawk gets traded to another team? Yeah, I didn't think so. Sure, there are bandwagon fans, but they're not the ones that buy season tickets and buy stuff regardless of how well the team's doing.

Tical21 wrote:The players will form their own league before this would ever happen. It is only a matter of time before they figure out that they don't need owners. These are grown men. They are the product. We will watch them. They don't need to be "owned" by anybody. With as popular as football is, and as much money as we pay to watch and collect garb, the last thing the players need is some rich guy to take half off the top.

The USFL and NFL Europe failed, I dont see how the players could form their own league when they can't even make it through a strike without borrowing money at 40% interest.

There is a reason rich people are rich and that players need to have a retirement fund. Rich people know how to make, and keep money. Neither players, nor the NFLPA are capable of planning for long term.

Hell, players cant even stay off dope long enough to get through the combine.

ivotuk wrote:Right track, wrong idea. What Pete and John have done this time is a: draft players that will put pressure on our highest paid players and b: to groom players that will likely replace players we can't afford to pay (a:Red & Clem b: Sherman)

There's one glitch in that theory, and that is, you can only cheapskate players for just so long, before those replacement players see that a lot of hard work, and commitment to laying your all on the line isn't being rewarded, and you are just another player that gets the axe for the next sucker in line.Some players are over pricing themselves right out of the picture, while others (Tom Brady) realizes that he's not going to win games all by himself, and hell, even Matt Hasselbeck took some O-linemen to dinner to show his appreciation for their commitment to keeping him upright, and those guys deserve a decent paycheck for staying on board to continuity.Hutchinson not only screwed the Seahawks, but himself and the Vikings for the larger than his worth paycheck.

Some of you guys are forgetting that most players love the game, and haven't even begun to prepare for earning money any other way. Plus, the rookie league minimum salary is $285k per year. At least 99% of players getting drafted are unable to make anything close to that through any other means right after they graduate. Give me a break.

I think that when the FO extended Kam they sent a message to our players, and a very loud one at that. Sherman WILL be taken care of, and he will be a Seahawk after his contract is redone. Of course, this is barring a catastrophic season, but I don't see Sherman tanking anytime soon.

I could very well be mistaken but it was my understanding that the signing bonus does not count against the cap, and we have the richest owner in the league if they want to keep Sherm or anyone else they will.

The signing bonus doesn't count against the cap for a given year i read then gets spread out, i think i'll leave the salary cap to people who get paid to know how it works because i really have no idea. What i do know is teams find ways around it.

The salary cap can only fit so many players, we can't keep Chris Clemons, Red Bryant, Max Unger, Kam Chancellor, Brandon Mebane, Red Bryant, and everyone else who has gotten paid, and still pay, or reup Russell Wilson, Earl Thomas, Russell Okung, etc etc. John Schneider said there are going to be some tough decisions to make and Richard Sherman will probably value out right at 11-12 million per year when his new contract comes up. As much as I'd love to keep him, he's just not going to fit under the salary cap unless we cut some of those people who are getting paid now.

HawkWow wrote:It is clear the league is changing and the Seattle Seahawks is changing with it. You can see it across the board in this 2013 draft.

I believe the rookie cap will be the ultimate un-doing of fan favorites & beloved vets. I predict in another 10 years (or less), only QBs will be making the obscene money many vets (Revis) enjoy today. Vets will be forced to settle for 'realistic' money, or they will be replaced with 2nd or 3rd year men (and so on). If all owners play this the same way (and they will) the public won't even detect a drop off.

Strikes, threats of strikes and hold outs, have seen the owners feet held to the fire for many years. Now, the writing is on the wall and the owners will surely get the last laugh (the rich always get richer).

Sooner than later, we will see this up close and personal with our beloved Seattle Seahawks. Most are not going to appreciate it when this reality hits home (Sherman). This is what I'm seeing, but I'd actually like to be wrong, so your (intelligent) counters will be welcomed & appreciated.

Salary cap, rookie cap, free agency were all designed to destroy good teams and reward bad teams. It's the way the whole thing is designed. It's a spread the wealth, and give everybody a chance kind of plan. It does make the game exciting and irritating at the same time. Bottom feeder teams like the Rams and Arizona can go from zero to hero in a season or two, instead of half a decade like the old times when Landry, Shula, and Chuck Knox coached. I think it's a good thing, keeps every fan engaged because you hit that Russell wilson draft pick and your year just went from 8-8 to 11-5, that quick. Makes coaching and being a front office guy that much more difficult. But if you have a good staff on the coaching and the front office, all you need is a slight edge and you pretty much have the conference to yourself.

"The players will form their own league before this would ever happen. It is only a matter of time before they figure out that they don't need owners. These are grown men. They are the product. We will watch them. They don't need to be "owned" by anybody. With as popular as football is, and as much money as we pay to watch and collect garb, the last thing the players need is some rich guy to take half off the top"

Wow. Really?

So, these players are going to pool their money (many of whom end up bankrupt after their playing days and making millions) and build new stadiums, spend the money to set up a new league, et al ? Where are fans going to watch these "player only" games, the street ? The sandlot ? Some random high school or college rented out ? People will really pay for that ? Do you have any idea how much new state of the art stadiums cost, with today's labor rates ? A minimum of 800 million and closer to a billion. It's like 10% of the salary cap for a third the teams in the league, for ONE stadium. Do the math.

Like others said, rich people get richer because of financial savvy. Not just from already having money, but knowing what to do with it. This league had to start out with a bunch of rich guys, because no one could've funded what they had to put out.

While there will be a correction, which we're witnessing now, I don't think it's really going to be that different from the past. Bad teams will still overpay to get better, good teams will let good players walk to keep their core together. For the Seahawks, whether it's possible to keep Sherman as part of that core remains to be seen. However, on the OP's point about how it seems only the elite QBs are getting the obscene money, and the owners are playing along, I think that's caused by multiple temporary factors, which will even out and then be back to normal, possibly as soon as next year.

1. The salary cap has been flat. Many teams would have budgeted for the roughly $5-7 million per year increase that had been happening during the 2000s. The fact that the salary cap effectively went down in 2010, and has only crawled up 3 million in two years since leaves a lot of teams in a tight spot with existing contracts that didn't get the cap relief they would have expected when deals were initially signed. That means more teams are having to cut existing veterans, restructure, or sign free agents at deals that may be less than perceived market value. Having super cheap rookies is certainly a good short term fix for them as well. I believe 2014 is when the new TV contract will hit, so who knows what that will do to the cap. Regardless, I think you're seeing teams take a more conservative approach on future expenditures given we're stuck in a period of little growth, which will change when teams have a better idea of what the cap will look like 5 years down the road.

2. The salary cap floor starts this year, sort of. My understanding of the current CBA's floor is that it's a rolling floor of 89% spread over 4 years. So technically teams can be short this, or next, or the year after, but at some point over the next 4 years they're going to have to spend that money somewhere so that they average 89% over that period. Since rookies are now limited, vets will have to get that money, though you might still see shorter term contracts rather than the long term ridiculous deals of the past that had no chance of being fully paid.

3. While I'm not sure Smith is to blame for a bad CBA (as I'm not really sure it's a bad deal in the existing economy), the fact the NFLPA agreed to the sanctions against the Redskins and Cowboys was certainly against their best interest. If there are two owners who are going to ignore conventional spending wisdom and artificially inflate the value of veterans, it's Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones. The fact that those organizations had their knees cut out from under them for the past two seasons went a long to way in my opinion to reducing crazy veteran contracts. And with the death of Al Davis, I think that took the third overspending owner out of the picture. Without a few outliers that agents can play off of, I think that leads to the smaller deals the vets are seeing now. You still had some teams giving big contracts to mediocre players (see Indy), but for the most part the competitive teams were able to sit back and let the market come to them. Next year, when the Redskins and Cowboys can really wheel and deal again, I think that will change.

I may be wrong, but I think we'll see a return to normalcy (or depending on perspective, insanity) on the contracts starting next year when the teams can better gauge the future. Rookies are still just that, teams win with a core of veterans, and free agency will still allow for those veterans to choose the highest bidder.

General Manager wrote:The signing bonus doesn't count against the cap for a given year i read then gets spread out, i think i'll leave the salary cap to people who get paid to know how it works because i really have no idea. What i do know is teams find ways around it.

Signing bonuses are spread out as long as the player is on the team per terms of his contract. The share of that money he makes each year DOES count against the cap. So if he gets a 10 million dollar singing bonus on a 5 year contract, that's 2 million dollars towards the cap each year, plus whatever his base salary is proportioned over those years. If you cut a player before the end of his contract, remaining bonus money counts immediately towards the cap. So if you take my above example and cut a player after 3 years, you take an immediate 4 million dollar cap hit. Every dollar made by a player counts towards the cap at some point by whatever team owns your contract.

1) Total dollars spent on player salaries. 2) How those dollars are allocated over each teams' roster.

As has been mentioned there's a minimum and a maximum amount that can be spent each year. The system has built in flexibility on both ends with the ability to spend over or under in any given year, but ultimately net out over time. We are all familiar with teams that end up in salary cap hell via 'dead money', etc. The new wrinkle will be a few teams struggling to meet the minimum expenditure on salaries or face stiff fines. As with any business, the well run franchises will use the rules to their advantage, the poorly run franchises will struggle and negatively impact the entire league. It won't just be the 'over spenders' producing distorted contracts, the 'under spenders' will do the same to avoid falling below the minimum and incurring fines.

You can tweak the rules to encourage franchises to make good decisions, but Front Offices are just as subject to a bell curve of talent as the players on the field. The key argument boils down to what percentage of revenue is allocated to players. As with any business this percentage will change over time, but will be checked by market forces. Just as players won't work for wages they don't feel are commensurate to their skills, neither will the Front Office or Owners.

The argument that players will found their own league shows a lack of critical thinking. Their talent is playing the game not running a business. That's not to say that a rival league (with new owners) isn't a legitimate threat, but the barrier to entry is very high. The real threat is losing talent to other sports e.g. I'll take 10 million a year as a pitcher if I can only make 5 million being a quarterback. As a result the quality of product declines and owners see declining revenues.

As for how the salaries are allocated by position, it's all about perceived value. Quarterbacks get big money, because they have the largest impact on a team. It's hard to watch NFLN or ESPN and not hear the mantra of 'this is a passing league', any wonder the passers are raking it in? As rules and strategies change over time so will the impact/reward equation.

I really think that more QBs will go the way of Tom Brady, and sign for tens of millions, but not a contract that will limit the organization from building a better team. That's one of the reasons the patriots have such a great offensive line, and such a high win % over the last decade.

We can hope, right?

I believe that teams with winning models will set the tone for the future, and if you're spending over a fourth of the salary cap on one player, you're not going to win for long.

General Manager wrote:The signing bonus doesn't count against the cap for a given year i read then gets spread out, i think i'll leave the salary cap to people who get paid to know how it works because i really have no idea. What i do know is teams find ways around it.

General Manager wrote:The signing bonus doesn't count against the cap for a given year i read then gets spread out, i think i'll leave the salary cap to people who get paid to know how it works because i really have no idea. What i do know is teams find ways around it.

Signing bonuses are spread out as long as the player is on the team per terms of his contract. The share of that money he makes each year DOES count against the cap. So if he gets a 10 million dollar singing bonus on a 5 year contract, that's 2 million dollars towards the cap each year, plus whatever his base salary is proportioned over those years. If you cut a player before the end of his contract, remaining bonus money counts immediately towards the cap. So if you take my above example and cut a player after 3 years, you take an immediate 4 million dollar cap hit. Every dollar made by a player counts towards the cap at some point by whatever team owns your contract.

I may not have that exactly right, but i think it's close.

No the signing bonus can be applied to a different year than the year it's signed that's one of the ways they circumvent the Salary cap . It still counts but not on that years cap .

ivotuk wrote:The salary cap can only fit so many players, we can't keep Chris Clemons, Red Bryant, Max Unger, Kam Chancellor, Brandon Mebane, Red Bryant, and everyone else who has gotten paid, and still pay, or reup Russell Wilson, Earl Thomas, Russell Okung, etc etc. John Schneider said there are going to be some tough decisions to make and Richard Sherman will probably value out right at 11-12 million per year when his new contract comes up. As much as I'd love to keep him, he's just not going to fit under the salary cap unless we cut some of those people who are getting paid now.

I would say goodbye to every one of those guys if it meant retaining Sherman along with Wilson, Okung and Thomas. I don't think it's going to be as dramatic as that though. Clem, and Mebane's contracts should run off in time to re-up Wilson and Sherman, and Red's contract is set up in such a way that it'll cost nothing to release him to free up cap space (so you know he'll restructure).

Our guys are CRAZY smart that way. They've set it up so the current "stars" contracts are all running off as the next crop of "stars" big boy deals are coming up. Look at their contract deets on Rotoworld, all the really big contracts on the books now (less Kam and Percy's new deals) run out in either 2015 or 2016; the time the next crop is due to hit their paydays (Sherm and ET in 2015, RW and Okung in 2016). Guys like Red, Rice, Zach and Marshawn will all be faced with a decision to re-up with the Hawks for much less money or hit the bricks. THOSE are the kind of familiar faces leaving town that they were talking about, not the young core. The rookie wage scale really helps us in that regard as guys like Sherman and Wilson are prohibited from holding out and demanding their pay day early, so it makes it much easier to schedule.

Our FO is awesome and are setting this thing up for the long haul. I'm in absolute awe of these guys every day...

General Manager wrote:The signing bonus doesn't count against the cap for a given year i read then gets spread out, i think i'll leave the salary cap to people who get paid to know how it works because i really have no idea. What i do know is teams find ways around it.

Signing bonuses are spread out as long as the player is on the team per terms of his contract. The share of that money he makes each year DOES count against the cap. So if he gets a 10 million dollar singing bonus on a 5 year contract, that's 2 million dollars towards the cap each year, plus whatever his base salary is proportioned over those years. If you cut a player before the end of his contract, remaining bonus money counts immediately towards the cap. So if you take my above example and cut a player after 3 years, you take an immediate 4 million dollar cap hit. Every dollar made by a player counts towards the cap at some point by whatever team owns your contract.

I may not have that exactly right, but i think it's close.

No the signing bonus can be applied to a different year than the year it's signed that's one of the ways they circumvent the Salary cap . It still counts but not on that years cap .

I was speaking more in a general sense (10 mil evenly over a 5 year period), but any money spent in a signing bonus does need to be applied to the cap eventually. You can't for instance pay all your top players in signing bonuses and keep everyone if your pockets are deep enough. Eventually the money actually paid to a player must hit the cap. How it's spread out over a number of years is up to the team.

Wow. I asked for intelligent counters (to my OP) and must say, some were too intelligent for me. Thanks for the great replies.

One poster said he thought we'd see more vets going the way of Tom Brady's recent act of unselfishness. That was kinda where I was going with this thread and could have been a bit more elequent in conveying that. I say this because another poster asked "where do you think the vets will go"? Surely I didn't think the vets, after having their enormous demands declined, would be flipping burgers at Wendy's. But I do think more than a few will reduce their expectations to stay with a given team. If not, there is always another...until there's not.

That echos the comment another poster made about (some) players wanting a championship as bad as money. We have benefitted from such a player (Bennett) this off-season and I think more will start falling in line with that mentality. I mean, once you have like 20 mil in the bank, you're a long way from the backwoods of Brazoria, Tx. Be grateful.

It won't be as simple as the players revolting and "starting a new league". Vince McMahon attempted something like this..who's next...Don King? That would be the fast ticket to the Wendy's job, as another poster reminded us that "we support the team, not the player". Most of us, anyway.